Scheffler, Shanti

Background Balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are adjunctive devices that may be used during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) to induce flow arrest and improve clot retrieval and reperfusion outcomes for acute ischemic stroke. As the cost-effectiveness of BGC use remains uncertain, this study assessed short- and long-term direct healthcare costs associated with BGC use versus standard guide catheters (SGC) during MT. Methods A decision tree model estimated the short-term costs (index hospitalization), long-term costs (one year after index hospitalization), and total costs for patients undergoing MT + BGC versus MT + SGC from a healthcare system perspective in the United States (US), Canada, United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and The Netherlands. Average device costs were sourced from public tender prices and market research data. Weighted average healthcare costs for modified Rankin Scale scores were sourced from published literature for the respective countries. A 2024 meta-analysis supporting improved outcomes with BGC provided input parameters to model treatment effects for BGC and SGC. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of model parameters and accounted for uncertainty. Results Across all countries, long-term and total per-patient costs were lower with MT + BGC, yielding total per-patient cost savings of $6297 (US), CAD 3006 (Canada), £1828 (UK), 28,950 kr (Sweden), €1077 (Germany), €709 (Italy), €3678 (Spain), €2259 (Belgium), and €3344 (The Netherlands). The probability of MT + BGC yielding cost savings ranged 0.356–0.911 (short term), 0.962–0.975 (long term), and 0.838–0.935 (total costs). While long-term and total costs consistently favored MT + BGC, short-term cost savings showed more variability across countries. Conclusion This study demonstrates that BGC use is associated with total one-year per-patient cost savings for inpatient and postdischarge stroke care across the US, Canada, and seven European healthcare systems. Balloon guide catheters can potentially reduce post-stroke care costs and should be considered more broadly, despite the additional cost incurred by the device.

Aim: According to the results of the MASTRO I living systematic review and meta-analysis, use of the EmboTrap Revascularization ® Device in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) results in higher rates of good functional outcomes (90-day modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0–2) compared with use of the Trevo ® Retriever or the Solitaire™ Revascularization Device. The aim of this analysis was to assess the potential economic impact of achieving improved functional outcomes for three commonly used stent retrievers (SRs) in the treatment of AIS. Methods: An economic model with short-term and long-term costs, representing a healthcare system perspective was developed using a decision tree to simulate a cohort of 1000 hypothetical patients treated for AIS with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) using EmboTrap, Trevo or Solitaire SRs. Based on the proportion of patients who achieved a 90-day mRS score of 0–2 or 3–5 for each device reported in MASTRO I (excluding patients not surviving after 90 days), this model estimated per-patient costs and the associated incremental cost savings. Results are reported from the healthcare system perspective in the US, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and The Netherlands. Results: Across all ten countries, the use of EmboTrap during MT was associated with the lowest short-term (ranging from €8412 in Italy to $66,525 in the US), long-term (ranging from €5249 in Italy to $25,757 in the US) and total (ranging from €13,661 in Italy to $92,282 in the US) per-patient costs. The total per-patient cost was higher with Trevo (ranging from €14,601 in Italy to $97,487 in the US) and Solitaire (ranging from €14,840 in Italy to $98,814 in the US). Cost savings were highest when comparing EmboTrap versus Solitaire, followed by EmboTrap versus Trevo, with Trevo versus Solitaire having the smallest cost savings. Results of sensitivity and scenario analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results. Conclusion: Across the ten countries, treating patients with AIS with EmboTrap resulted in lower short-term, long-term and total costs to the payer. With rising healthcare costs and limited hospital budgets, these results suggest EmboTrap proves to be an evidence-based economical choice of SR for hospitals and healthcare systems.